I think if Renney had those three players, the Rangers would be where they are now.

Renney himself said they needed size up front and another vet on D. And they went out and got both.

I would also be more inclined to say that Renney would not have needed to bench Avery in game 5.

But, like I said it's all conjecture.

I do think the biggest question is what had the greater effect on this team, the new coach or the trade deadline (and Avery) acquisitions?

I agree with this.

This is a twisted analogy (please don't infract me for this) but it's very similar to me being furious every time I get infracted for something I think is a joke. It pisses me off. It drives me crazy because I don't agree with it. But I can't knock it because I'm not the only one who is held to that standard.

Torts picks and chooses who he wants to hold to certain standards and then doesn't act in a way that he demands.

It's far easier for me to respect my infractions on here because the people infracting me aren't conducting themselves as I do. If they were, I'd have a hard time dealing with that. Much like I'm sure many Rangers players do.

Tort's actions and behaviors were hypocritical far before he made himself look like an ass in Game 5.

The guy is a fool and selectively chooses who to hold accountable.

Avery's benching aside, the way he handles this team is a joke.

At the very least, the Avery benching sends a louder message when you don't go out and do something worse. If the idea is no one person is larger than the team, the head coach needs to lead by example.

I don't have a problem with Tortorella being suspended for this. Throwing an object and hitting someone who had obviously nothing to do with the incident really calls for more than just one game. The other thing though is why is it that the NHL won't go after the Caps for providing such shoddy security? As for the beer throwing fan he's probably laughing his ass off--he's gotten his 15 minutes of fame.

I think if Renney had those three players, the Rangers would be where they are now.

Renney himself said they needed size up front and another vet on D. And they went out and got both.

I would also be more inclined to say that Renney would not have needed to bench Avery in game 5.

But, like I said it's all conjecture.

I do think the biggest question is what had the greater effect on this team, the new coach or the trade deadline (and Avery) acquisitions?

SBoB, I think you are spot on all your conjectures. I think Renney's demeanor is a sobering one that, although this team does not have many volatile personalities, keeps the likes of Avery in check. It'd be safe to say that Renney would not have flipped out on the fans like Tortarella did if those things were said to Renney, BUT even so, Renney is not the type of person who would attract those comments being said to him in the heat of a game in the first place.

Tortarella will rock the boat, as will Schoenfeld. These aren't your ideal guys to keep guys like Avery in check, or to ream-out guys like Orr for taking too many men penalties only to act more foolish just minutes later.

But, maybe these are the type of coaches to shake up an otherwise emotionally numb roster as we have come to known, so who knows ....

Schonfeld said that Tortorella was sticking up for one of his players who was taking verbal abuse from those fans. He didn't just snap for no reason. His players probably have more respect for him now because of that.

Not sure what they hope that will achieve other than additional security should there be a game 7. A fine? Who cares?

Well, clearly Sather and the Rangers care. This was posted on Carp's blog:

Quote:

Subject: Washington vs. New York, Game 5

Dear Gary:

In addition to your suspension of Coach Tortorella for his actions during last night’s game, we respectfully request that you consider appropriate discipline in light of Washington’s gross negligence in ensuring the safety of the personnel on the Rangers’ bench, including Coach Tortorella, in the face of the Rangers’ repeated requests for intervention against egregious fan misconduct during Game 5. As importantly, we would like the League’s intervention to ensure that there are adequate security measures in place to protect our personnel in the event there is a Game 7 in Washington.

Neither the NHL nor either team has had the opportunity to conduct a full investigation or to interview all witnesses but the television coverage and the statements made by Rangers bench personnel make clear that Washington utterly failed in its security obligations to the Rangers, not to mention its own fans. The tension was evident from before the opening face-off. Throughout the game, several people seated immediately behind the visitors’ bench took advantage of the looseness of the glass panels and the unusually wide gaps between the panels to assault the Rangers with some of the most obscene language imaginable. Because of the way the glass is installed, the patron sitting behind Coach Tortorella (the gray-haired, bearded man in the white T-Shirt) could literally scream into the coach’s ear. According to Rangers trainer Jim Ramsay, one patron was screaming at the team, in graphic language, about whether Dan Girardi and Marc Staal have a sexual relationship. This was within earshot of several children seated nearby. Several other fans also made repeated homophobic remarks. Moreover, Mr. Ramsay reported that he and other bench personnel were spit on by one or more “fans” as they yelled through the gaps in the glass.

Your statement tonight referred to alerting security. In the first period, Mr. Ramsay warned the security guard stationed on the nearest stairwell (a large African-American man) that the situation was unacceptable and was likely to get ugly. No action was taken. The misconduct continued. In the second period, Mr. Ramsay warned a female security supervisor that some fans were out of control and that he was concerned that something unfortunate was going to happen. Although this supervisor was equipped with a radio, she apparently took no action, because the same fans were in their seats when the team returned to the bench for the third period. According to press accounts, no fans were ever ejected or permanently removed from their seats.

Washington’s failure to respond to what its personnel knew — and were specifically warned — was a potentially dangerous situation contributed significantly to this unfortunate incident. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you consider imposing appropriate discipline on Washington for its knowing failure to protect the Rangers and prevent the situation from deteriorating into an incident that reflects badly on all of us. In addition, we must immediately discuss how Washington is going to handle security for any Game 7. Neither the Rangers nor the well-behaved Capitals fans should be forced to endure the extraordinary level of fan misconduct that Washington failed to prevent in Game 5.

Well, clearly Sather and the Rangers care. This was posted on Carp's blog:

I'm sure they have a reason. I fail to see what the potential outcome is this is going to be? Reverse Torts' suspension after the fact? The fact is any penalty to the Caps will pale in comparison to losing a head coach for a game 6.

The Rangers sent a letter Saturday to the NHL asserting "gross negligence" by the Capitals in response to "egregious fan misconduct." Spectators behind the visitors' bench used obscene language and spit on team personnel, the letter said, and Capitals security did not act on requests to intervene.

"According to Rangers trainer Jim Ramsay, one patron was screaming at the team, in graphic language, about whether Dan Girardi and Marc Staal have a sexual relationship," general manager Glen Sather wrote in a letter to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman that the team released Sunday. "This was within earshot of several children seated nearby. Several other fans also made repeated homophobic remarks."

Ramsay alerted a security guard and later a security supervisor, the letter said, but the offending fans were not removed from their seats.

"Washington's failure to respond to what its personnel knew -- and were specifically warned -- was a potentially dangerous situation contributed significantly to this unfortunate incident," Sather wrote.

I think if Renney had those three players, the Rangers would be where they are now.

Renney himself said they needed size up front and another vet on D. And they went out and got both.

I would also be more inclined to say that Renney would not have needed to bench Avery in game 5.

But, like I said it's all conjecture.

I do think the biggest question is what had the greater effect on this team, the new coach or the trade deadline (and Avery) acquisitions?

i agree... thats why i voted not to fire renney on that poll...i think we should have seen what he could do with this team and if we were still unhappy we could have let him go after the season..anyway i do get why slats did it